If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. Part II

DaveThomasNMSR said:
It's like this, FF. Suppose you had said you understood "middle school arithmetic".
Click to expand...
Please explain why I need to answer your busy work questions to prove that I understand Newton's laws of motion.

You claim I'm dodging your question. This is wrong. I am intentionally refusing to answer because no one needs to answer your questions to be able to understand Newton's laws of motion.

Once again, a skeptic tries to over-complicate things. They do this to make the truth harder to see. They do this to chase away the average person who thinks that since they can't do the math, they don't understand physics. This is nonsense, and it's deceitful.

You don't need to understand math at all to have a basic understanding of Newton's laws of motion. Skeptics are going to go nuts over that fact, but it's true.
 
FalseFlag said:
Please explain why I need to answer your busy work questions to prove that I understand Newton's laws of motion.

You claim I'm dodging your question. This is wrong. I am intentionally refusing to answer because no one needs to answer your questions to be able to understand Newton's laws of motion.

Once again, a skeptic tries to over-complicate things. They do this to make the truth harder to see. They do this to chase away the average person who thinks that since they can't do the math, they don't understand physics. This is nonsense, and it's deceitful.

You don't need to understand math at all to have a basic understanding of Newton's laws of motion. Skeptics are going to go nuts over that fact, but it's true.
Click to expand...

Here's some discussion to prove your physics worth on the subject. Please go here and see if you can meet the challenge. Free fall is not evidence for controlled demolition.

Hint: Having free fall acceleration does not mean something is freely falling.
 
FalseFlag said:
Please explain why I need to answer your busy work questions to prove that I understand Newton's laws of motion.

You claim I'm dodging your question. This is wrong. I am intentionally refusing to answer because no one needs to answer your questions to be able to understand Newton's laws of motion.

Once again, a skeptic tries to over-complicate things. They do this to make the truth harder to see. They do this to chase away the average person who thinks that since they can't do the math, they don't understand physics. This is nonsense, and it's deceitful.

You don't need to understand math at all to have a basic understanding of Newton's laws of motion. Skeptics are going to go nuts over that fact, but it's true.
Click to expand...

How can you understand Newton at all? It is your claim that you are not an expert, thus your pseudo claims may be dismissed out of hand.
 
FalseFlag said:
Please explain why I need to answer your busy work questions to prove that I understand Newton's laws of motion.

You claim I'm dodging your question. This is wrong. I am intentionally refusing to answer because no one needs to answer your questions to be able to understand Newton's laws of motion.

Once again, a skeptic tries to over-complicate things. They do this to make the truth harder to see. They do this to chase away the average person who thinks that since they can't do the math, they don't understand physics. This is nonsense, and it's deceitful.

You don't need to understand math at all to have a basic understanding of Newton's laws of motion. Skeptics are going to go nuts over that fact, but it's true.
Click to expand...

Stop equivocating physics with Newton's laws of motion.

tfk said:
ONE of us understands “middle school physics”.
Click to expand...
FalseFlag said:
No. We both do. The difference is that one of us isn't ignoring it.
Click to expand...

FF, you've already demonstrated that you are incompetent at middle school physics.

Given the exact, precise position of an object, you have no clue as to its velocity and acceleration.

We get it.

You don't know physics.

Saying things like "You don't need to understand math at all to have a basic understanding of Newton's laws of motion" is just Gilding the Lily.

:rolleyes:
 
Dave Rogers said:
Sorry, what? You don't need to understand maths at all to understand F=MA?

Bizarre.

Dave
Click to expand...

A person would need to understand the definition of multiplication in order to understand Newton's second law. Please explain how you need to be able to multiply in order to understand a definition.
 
Last edited:
tfk said:
This country asked a couple hundred world class professionals to abandon what they were doing & come to its aid in one of its darkest hours.
Click to expand...
I never knew an hour lasted several years. Why did they wait so long? Was anyone against having any investigation at all? I wonder who those people were.

They published their results, and ALL competent professionals accept their conclusions.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that? Did anyone have editorial control over their results?

A few clueless amateurs don't accept them.
Click to expand...
2500 people who are neither clueless nor amateurs also don't accept the results.

The whole concept is beyond stupid, and incredibly disrespectful to the engineers who did the inside job.
Click to expand...
FTFY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom